"Ron Teitelbaum" <Ron at USMedRec.com> writes:
> +1
>> I think it would be good to have a more formal process. It would be nice if
> we could have a single place to go to see what is going on, who is working
> on what and if there is any progress. I like the idea of organizing around
> current contributions and providing a structure so that everyone can
> understand the process of harvesting changes for adoption in the main image.
Me three. In my mind, working out a good process is the most
important thing that the Squeak community needs. I argued so back
when the Castaways bullied in and tried to fix our community against
our will [1], and in most ways we are in about the same position now
as then.
The one good process change I see is that we can elect board members
now. That's an excellent and crucial step forward.
The next big thing to focus on, IMHO, is managing changes to the
shared image. Part of that is surely to develop an idea of
membership. Using computer-generated popularity rankings is a poor
way to go. [2,3]
For big changes to the shared image, Andreas's notes earlier in the
thread sound terrific to me.
For small changes, we still seem to be operating in a vacuum. I am
unmotivated to fix bugs in core Squeak and in the Unix port, because
in both cases the fixes are often ignored. SharedQueue, one of our
fundamental synchronization constructs, has been broken for over a
year now, despite a fix being available [4]. Should I ever again blow
away a Saturday like that? Nobody likes being a sucker who fights
harder for something than its own management.
So here's a challenge for you, board: how do we get fixes processed?
All the really cool Squeak stuff happens at the periphery [3]. The
question for the board is thus: how do we handle the simple, prosaic
patches?
-Lex
[1] When I reread this old thread:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2005-February/088316.html
I again wonder how things would have gone if the "Squeak Foundation
Formation" group had continued its work, instead of being de facto
shut down by the Castaways.
[2] "[Elections] reputation systems for membership"
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2005-December/000010.html
[3] "Squeak as Commons", my first sketch for a community organization:
http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/44.html
[4] http://forums.squeakland.org/view.php?id=1375